Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 213–223 | Cite as

Revising the South Oaks Gambling Screen in different settings

  • Henry R. Lesieur
  • Sheila B. Blume


The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), a validated, reliable instrument for detecting gambling problems, and the South Oaks Leisure Activities Screen (SOLAS), a companion screening tool for use with significant others, have been employed in a variety of settings and in several languages. This paper focuses on adapting the SOGS for use in various cultures and localities, discusses the authors' 1992 revision of the SOGS, and includes both the revised SOGS and the SOLAS.


Screening Tool Gambling Problem Leisure Activity Reliable Instrument South Oaks Gambling Screen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbott, M. & Volberg, R. (1991).Gambling and problem gambling in New Zealand. Research Series #12, Research Unit, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, M. & Volberg, R. (1992).Frequent gamblers and problem gamblers in New Zealand: Report on phase two of the national survey. Research Series #14, Research Unit, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  3. Blume, S.B. (1989). Treatment for the addictions in a psychiatric setting.British Journal of Addiction, 84, 727–729.Google Scholar
  4. Culleton, R.P. (1989). The prevalence rates of pathological gambling: A look at methods.Journal of Gambling Behavior, 5, 22–41.Google Scholar
  5. Dickerson, M. & Hinchy, J. (1988). The prevalence of excessive and pathological gambling in Australia.Journal of Gambling Behavior, 4, 135–151.Google Scholar
  6. Dickerson, M. (in press). A preliminary exploration of a two-stage methodology in the assessment of the extent and degree of gambling-related problems in the Australian population. In W.R. Eadington, J. Cornelius & J.I. Taber (Eds.)Gambling behavior and problem gambling. Reno, Nevada: Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, University of Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar
  7. Ladouceur, R. (1991). Prevalence estimates of pathological gamblers in Quebec.Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 732–734.Google Scholar
  8. Laundergan, J.C., Shaefer, J.M., & Eckhoff, K.F. (1990).Adult survey of Minnesota gambling behavior: A benchmark, 1990. Center for Addiction Studies, University of Minnesota, Duluth.Google Scholar
  9. Lesieur, H.R. & Blume, S.B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (The SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers.American Journal of Psychiatry 144, 1184–1188.Google Scholar
  10. Lesieur, H.R. & Blume, S.B. (1990). Characteristics of gamblers identified among patients on a psychiatric admissions service.Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 41, 1009–1012.Google Scholar
  11. Lesieur, H.R. & Blume, S.B. (1991). Evaluation of patients treated for pathological gambling in a combined alcohol, substance abuse and pathological gambling treatment unit using the addiction severity index.British Journal of Addictions, 86, 1017–1028.Google Scholar
  12. Lesieur, H.R., Cross, J., Frank, M., Welch, M., White, C.M., Rubenstein, G., Moseley, K. & Mark, M. (1991). Gambling and pathological gambling among university students.Addictive Behaviors: An International Journal, 16, 517–527.Google Scholar
  13. Lesieur, H.R. & Heineman, M. (1988). Pathological gambling among youthful multiple substance abusers in a therapeutic community.British Journal of Addiction, 83, 765–771.Google Scholar
  14. Martinez-Pina, A., de Parga, J.L.G., Vallverdu, R.F., Planas, X.S., Mateo, M.M. & Aguado, V.M. (1991). The Catalonia survey: Personality and intelligence structure in a sample of compulsive gamblers.Journal of Gambling Studies, 7, 275–300.Google Scholar
  15. Rosenthal, R.J. (1989). Pathological gambling and problem gambling: Problems of definition and diagnosis. In H.J. Shaffer, S.A. Stein, B. Gambino & T.N. Cummings (Eds.)Compulsive gambling: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 101–125). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  16. Volberg, R. & Banks, S.M. (1990). A review of two measures of pathological gambling in the United States.Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 153–163.Google Scholar
  17. Volberg, R. & Steadman, H. (1988). Refining prevalence estimates of pathological gambling.American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 502–505.Google Scholar
  18. Volberg, R. & Steadman, H. (1989a). Prevalence estimates of pathological gambling in New Jersey and Maryland.American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 1618–1619.Google Scholar
  19. Volberg, R. & Steadman, H. (1989b).Problem gambling in Iowa. Report prepared for the Iowa Department of Human Services.Google Scholar
  20. Wallisch, L.S. (1993).Gambling in Texas: 1992 Texas survey of adult gambling behavior. Austin, Texas: Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse.Google Scholar
  21. Winters, K.C., Stinchfield, R. & Fulkerson, J. (1990).Adolescent survey of gambling behavior in Minnesota: A benchmark. Center for Addiction Studies, University of Minnesota, Duluth.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry R. Lesieur
    • 1
  • Sheila B. Blume
    • 2
  1. 1.Illinois State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.South Oaks Institute of Alcoholism and Addictive Behavior StudiesAmityville

Personalised recommendations